News flash for flat-earthers

[Red Dawn]

Why is it that you always post data that ENDs almost ten years ago?

why the hell don't you learn to read graphs before you post something idiotic like this? the data on the graph is through 2007

Really ... look at it. Each "block" displays 5 years (approx.) and the last one ends almost half way through the 2005 block ... making it about 2003. Not exactly 10 years but if flat earthers can exaggerate so can I.

Okay, so we first can stipulate that you were totally wrong in posting a snarky comment at about it being "almost a decade out of date?".

Will you admit you were totally wrong?

Second, if you count the data points closely, there's seven data points since 2000. Making the graph through 2007.

Its the latest graphy nasa has on their website.

they don't post the 2008 data for many months, it still undergoing analyis.


Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)


I think you owe me an apology for the snarky comment , or at a minimum an admission you were completely wrong.

 

[KittenKoder]

why the hell don't you learn to read graphs before you post something idiotic like this? the data on the graph is through 2007

Really ... look at it. Each "block" displays 5 years (approx.) and the last one ends almost half way through the 2005 block ... making it about 2003. Not exactly 10 years but if flat earthers can exaggerate so can I.

Okay, so we first can stipulate that you were totally wrong in posting a snarky comment at about it being "almost a decade out of date?".

Will you admit you were totally wrong?

Second, if you count the data points closely, there's seven data points since 2000. Making the graph through 2007.

Its the latest graphy nasa has on their website.

they don't post the 2008 data for many months, it still undergoing analyis.


Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)


I think you owe me an apology for the snarky comment , or at a minimum an admission you were completely wrong.

So then whoever compiled the graph was being dishonest ...

 

[KittenKoder]

In case you didn't pick up on it, which I doubt flat earther would, I was using the exact same logic you use for defending the hoax.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D.
Until recently, global temperatures were more than a degree Fahrenheit warmer when compared to the overall 20th Century mean. From August of 2007 through February of 2008, the Earth’s mean reading dropped to near the 200-year average temperature of 57 degrees. (See Long-Term Chart Below.)

We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankind’s activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect,’ are making conditions ‘worse’ and this will ultimately enhance the Earth’s warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades.Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.
Check out the chart at the bottom of the article.

Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D.
Until recently, global temperatures were more than a degree Fahrenheit warmer when compared to the overall 20th Century mean. From August of 2007 through February of 2008, the Earth’s mean reading dropped to near the 200-year average temperature of 57 degrees. (See Long-Term Chart Below.)

We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankind’s activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect,’ are making conditions ‘worse’ and this will ultimately enhance the Earth’s warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades.

From the late 1940s through the early 1970s, a climate research organization called the Weather Science Foundation of Crystal Lake, Illinois, determined that the planet’s warm, cold, wet and dry periods were the result of alternating short-term and long-term climatic cycles. These researchers and scientists also concluded that the Earth’s ever-changing climate likewise has influenced global and regional economies, human and animal migrations, science, religion and the arts as well as shifting forms of government and strength of leadership.

Much of this data was based upon thousands of hours of research done by Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and his associates during the 1930s and 1940s at the University of Kansas. Dr. Wheeler was well-known for his discovery of various climate cycles, including his highly-regarded ‘510-Year Drought Clock’ that he detailed at the end of the ‘Dust Bowl’ era in the late 1930s.

During the early 1970s, our planet was in the midst of a colder and drier weather cycle. Inflationary recessions and oil shortages led to rationing and long gas lines at service stations worldwide. The situation at that time was far worse than it is now, at least for the time being.

The Weather Science Foundation also predicted, based on these various climate cycles, that our planet would turn much warmer and wetter by the early 2000s, resulting in general global prosperity. They also said that we would be seeing at this time widespread weather ‘extremes.’ There’s little doubt that most of their early predictions came true.

Our recent decline in the Earth’s temperature may be a combination of both long-term and short-term climate cycles, decreased solar activity and the development of a strong long-lasting La Nina, the current cooler than normal sea-surface temperature event in the south-central Pacific Ocean. Sunspot activity in the past 18 months has decreased to the lowest levels since ‘The Little Ice Age’ ended in the mid-to late 1800s. This "cool spell," though, may only be a brief interruption to the Earth’s overall warming trend. Only time will tell.

Based on these predictions, it appears that much warmer readings may be expected for Planet Earth, especially by the 2030s, that will eventually top 1998's global highest reading of 58.3 degrees. It’s quite possible we could see an average temperature in the low 60s. Until then, this ‘cooling period’ may last from just a few months to as long as several years, especially if sunspot activity remains very low.
We at Harris-Mann Climatology, Long Range Weather Trends, Weather Records and Extremes, Weather and Climate History, Daily Forecast Services, believe that our prolonged cycle of wide weather ‘extremes,’ the worst in at least 1,000 years, will continue and perhaps become even more severe, especially by the mid 2010s. We should see more powerful storms, including major hurricanes and increasing deadly tornadoes. There will likewise be widespread flooding, crop-destroying droughts and freezes and violent weather of all types including ice storms, large-sized hail and torrential downpours

Yep and they don;t believe AGW has a damn thing to do with it.

Lordy, lordy, still not reading what you post? Look at the blue highlighted sentence. Perhaps if you would learn to read, you might even find some facts.

 

[Red Dawn]

Really ... look at it. Each "block" displays 5 years (approx.) and the last one ends almost half way through the 2005 block ... making it about 2003. Not exactly 10 years but if flat earthers can exaggerate so can I.

Okay, so we first can stipulate that you were totally wrong in posting a snarky comment at about it being "almost a decade out of date?".

Will you admit you were totally wrong?

Second, if you count the data points closely, there's seven data points since 2000. Making the graph through 2007.

Its the latest graphy nasa has on their website.

they don't post the 2008 data for many months, it still undergoing analyis.


Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)


I think you owe me an apology for the snarky comment , or at a minimum an admission you were completely wrong.

So then whoever compiled the graph was being dishonest ...

How were they being dishonest? NASA never posts the 2008 data on graphs until its fully analyzed. Why would scientists post preliminary 2008 results on their final graphs?



Here's what we've learned from this exchange.

Kitty misread a graph, and jumped in with a snarky comment claiming it was "a decade" out of date:.

When kitty was shown she was completely wrong, she refused to admit her error and started nitpicking about whether the graph was through 2005 or 2006.


Finally, we all must pray kitty's job doesn't require attention to detail. Because there are seven data points since 2000. Two data points overlap and almost look like one. Making the graph current through 2007.

 

[manifold]

News flash for flat-earthers

Who said the earth is flat?

The religious authorities of the day. Sailors, and anyone capable of simple observation knew otherwise. Same effect that we are seeing with global warming today.

Which religious authorities of what day exactly were you addressing with your thread title?

 

[Toro]

A few things I think you guys are not aware of:

a) global warming does not predict that there will be no snow ever again.

b) global warming does not rest on an assumption that the climate cannot be changed by natural processes

c) global warming does not predict every single year will be warmer than the last, only that the general trend will be upwards

d) John Coleman is not a scientist and holds no degrees in science at all. His degree is in journalism and his career in TV weather and as a businessman.

Any question?

Yeah, it was cold today. That means global warming is over, right?

 

[FactFinder]

why the hell don't you learn to read graphs before you post something idiotic like this? the data on the graph is through 2007

Really ... look at it. Each "block" displays 5 years (approx.) and the last one ends almost half way through the 2005 block ... making it about 2003. Not exactly 10 years but if flat earthers can exaggerate so can I.

Okay, so we first can stipulate that you were totally wrong in posting a snarky comment at about it being "almost a decade out of date?".

Will you admit you were totally wrong?

Second, if you count the data points closely, there's seven data points since 2000. Making the graph through 2007.

Its the latest graphy nasa has on their website.

they don't post the 2008 data for many months, it still undergoing analyis.


Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)


I think you owe me an apology for the snarky comment , or at a minimum an admission you were completely wrong.

Damn! An outright liar.
Unless there are more months in a year following Decenber, they have posted all 2008 data. From your own link:

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation
Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data.

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000

 

[SpidermanTuba]

c) global warming does not predict every single year will be warmer than the last, only that the general trend will be upwards

Except the general trend has been down for the last seven years.

And its been up for the last 8,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And global warming alarmists always seem to forget to tell you that Water vapor is the greenhouse gas responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is responsible for less than 5% of the greenhouse effect.

Thanks, I'll add that to the list.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

c) global warming does not predict every single year will be warmer than the last, only that the general trend will be upwards

Except the general trend has been down for the last seven years.

why exactly do you feel compelled to lie on this issue?

We can start with one simple premise: the Phd-trained scientists at NASA know more about trend analysis than you do.

Anyone who has ever taken a class in statistics knows more about trend analysis than he does

 

[Red Dawn]

Really ... look at it. Each "block" displays 5 years (approx.) and the last one ends almost half way through the 2005 block ... making it about 2003. Not exactly 10 years but if flat earthers can exaggerate so can I.

Okay, so we first can stipulate that you were totally wrong in posting a snarky comment at about it being "almost a decade out of date?".

Will you admit you were totally wrong?

Second, if you count the data points closely, there's seven data points since 2000. Making the graph through 2007.

Its the latest graphy nasa has on their website.

they don't post the 2008 data for many months, it still undergoing analyis.


Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)


I think you owe me an apology for the snarky comment , or at a minimum an admission you were completely wrong.

Damn! An outright liar.
Unless there are more months in a year following Decenber, they have posted all 2008 data. From your own link:

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation
Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data.

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000

.
n
fair enough, I was wrong. I can admit that, unlike kitty and you.

The NASA graph is through 2008. I miscounted the years.


Which makes Kitty's original snark on me, completely and hilariously wrong.

And which makes you even more wrong, since the trend analysis on the graphy shows an upward trend for the last seven years. even though you asserted the trend was downward for the last seven years


thanks for proving my point, sorry you looked like fools, and what, are you guys in middle school? Don't adults admit it when they're wrong? Kitty and Fact Denier?

 

[FactFinder]

You have already seen this. You do so continue the lie. Is that compulsive or just outright evil?

 

[Chris]

You have already seen this. You do so continue the lie. Is that compulsive or just outright evil?

Link?

 

[Red Dawn]

You have already seen this. You do so continue the lie. Is that compulsive or just outright evil?

OMFG, this has to be a joke, right?

Did you do that on powerpoint on your PC, or did you get that from a rightwing blog?? LOL, that's a fucking joke dude. It looks like some dude just drew straight lines between data points. You'd get laughed out of any university, any financial analysis company, or any techincal job that required trend analysis. That's not trend analysis!

Give me the link where you got this

 

[FactFinder]

You have already seen this. You do so continue the lie. Is that compulsive or just outright evil?

OMFG, this has to be a joke, right?

Did you do that on powerpoint on your PC, or did you get that from a rightwing blog?? LOL, that's a fucking joke dude. It looks like some dude just drew straight lines between data points. You'd get laughed out of any university, any financial analysis company, or any techincal job that required trend analysis. That's not trend analysis!

Give me the link where you got this

http://i29.tinypic.com/302oxli.jpg

If you download the data from the 4 sources that make up this graph you too can have the same result.

 

[Red Dawn]

FactDenier, don't you dare ever post a piece of shit like that again


that was a fucking joke


do you even fucking know what trend analysis is!?? Obviously you don't. That was a bunch of straight lines drawn between data points on an amateurish graph. There was no trend analysis there. There was no linear regression, or parametric regression, or any legitimate trend analysis whatsoever.

You would get fucking laughed out of any financial services company, or university with that fucking cartoon.

Stop fucking wasting my time with your uniformed bullshit. I can't waste my time on an uniformed and obviously scientifically illiterate doofus like you.

 

[dilloduck]

FactDenier, don't you dare ever post a piece of shit like that again


that was a fucking joke


do you even fucking know what trend analysis is!?? Obviously you don't. That was a bunch of straight lines drawn between data points on an amateurish graph. There was no trend analysis there. There was no linear regression, or parametric regression, or any legitimate trend analysis whatsoever.

You would get fucking laughed out of any financial services company, or university with that fucking cartoon.

Stop fucking wasting my time with your uniformed bullshit. I can't waste my time on an uniformed and obviously scientifically illiterate doofus like you.

( meanwhile back on the melting glacier, Lassie saves Timmy from a polar bear )

 

[KittenKoder]

FactDenier, don't you dare ever post a piece of shit like that again


that was a fucking joke


do you even fucking know what trend analysis is!?? Obviously you don't. That was a bunch of straight lines drawn between data points on an amateurish graph. There was no trend analysis there. There was no linear regression, or parametric regression, or any legitimate trend analysis whatsoever.

You would get fucking laughed out of any financial services company, or university with that fucking cartoon.

Stop fucking wasting my time with your uniformed bullshit. I can't waste my time on an uniformed and obviously scientifically illiterate doofus like you.

( meanwhile back on the melting glacier, Lassie saves Timmy from a polar bear )

 

[Chris]

tinypic.com?